The Gaming PC

When it comes to gaming computers, the most versatile graphic cards, best built motherboards and speediest RAM are beat in a matter of weeks. Worse yet, they become obsolete to the gaming fanatic in a year. It's an expensive, addictive hobby, but someone's going to have the fastest computer out there, and so the competition continues.

This instructable shows the simple task of putting together a top-of-the-line gaming machine. Remember, this rig won't be top-of-the-line for long. It has, maybe, a few weeks in the spotlight as the fastest computer on my block. It arguably has the best graphics on the market today, its one of the best overall gaming rigs out there, and sits in a unique and versatile case that won't become phased-out for some time.

Step 1: Case

Any case will do, as long as everything fits. Premium cases keep the computer colder with advanced airflow capabilities and have bigger interiors to keep everything neatly tucked away.

There are great products from Gigabyte (Aurora 3D 570) and Thermaltake (Kandalf Extreme Edition) but I chose Cooler Master's Stacker 830 Nvidia edition for it's cooling abilities and interesting design. The case has a side fan tray with four 120 x 25mm fans pushed it to the top of the list. It going to be loud, but cold. Plus the removable motherboard tray is an interesting bonus, making for a faster build and easier upgrade.

Comments

[Alex Mercer]

Mine is better..... I also used the i7 tech.

[the_burrito_master]

You might lessen the load on your graphics cards and keep things cooler If you put that in the lowest pci slot.

[darkmickey]

im still lost on the point of2 grafix cards 2moniters so u can multitask or wat

[ottermanuk]

answer: chilled

[trailleadr]

Those graphic cards are huge.  They remind me of the old CGA hercules cards in length.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/KL_Hercules_HGC.png

nice Build!

[zack247]

um... um... what were those used in? 1984... 84... i have never seen anything like that!

[trailleadr]

about that time frame.  Yep!

[zack247]

wow. with all of those chips you would think you got better graphics than 1mb...

[trailleadr]

Late reply, I know. Considering the average pc back then was lucky if it could support 640k at max, the hercules was the pinnacle of hardware to be sure. Which could explain why it cost about $400-500 depending where you bought it.

[zack247]

wow $500 for that... now people will pay $500 for about 640mb of memory

[agent harmsy]

2Gb*

[SpecieS~]

In step 5 you touched the electronic components on the PCB of the graphics card. NEVER, NEVER do that again, if you are not sure to be free of static charge! And usually humans are static charged. It's not much and you don't notice it, but it's enough to destroy the sensitive components (especially chips and processors) on PCBs.
This is quite important because otherwise some time you will wonder why your new 500$ graphics card or 200$ mother board doesn't work.

[lasersage]

I know you're just trying to be helpful and play it safe but unless you're wearing a lot of nylon and wearing welly boots whilst repeatedly combing your hair, then you don't need to worry.
I remember when PCs cost like £3000 for a 486 and everyone earth strapped to the nearest water pipe religiously. Now stuffs cheap no one I know bothers. The computer guy at work certainly doesn't, I handle hard drives and cards and mobos and all sorts with no protection. Never had a problem.
Maybe my time will come, who knows, I'm sure the company can afford a new card or two though.
If you're really paranoid just take off your shoes and let those sweaty feet be all the grounding you need.

[DamionLee]

The human body, whilst sitting still at a desk generates more than 100x the amount of static electricity needed to damage any component within a computer system. Just because you handle components and they do not 'stop' working does not mean you have not caused damage. To prove this point to an engineer that I inherited when I became head engineer at a new company who thought the same as you I challenged him to build a computer. I built a spec for spec identical computer. When they were bench tested, my build (with identical software install) was over 30% faster. The only reason for this is because of the huge amount of damage static discharge does. No-one should ever handle components without being correctly Earthed. But then, I'm just an experienced, trained engineer.

[lasersage]

Perhaps you could provide a link to anyone else proving similar things. I've never heard of this sort of behaviour. I'd love to see an article or peer reviewed paper proving such a fact as I am a little sceptical. I can only imagine that one of two things would be happening to produce the behaviour you describe: One option would be that there is huge redundancy built into the hardware and that whilst I've fried a bunch of junctions some other part of the chip can pick up the slack (I find this highly unlikely as I would've thought damage would result in it not working altogether but hey, I'm no expert). The other option would be that I'm partially damaging a bunch of junctions and reducing their functionality (again I find this unlikely as generally things work or don't, not limp along slowly, again I'm no expert). If I'm wrong please correct me and provide evidence. Its lovely that you feel you're an experienced trained engineer, good for you.

[DamionLee]

I will have to see if I can find online sources for you to view. All the information I have comes from the training courses and documentation I have had to sit through with the various IT firms and manufacturer's I have working with. As for the electrostatic discharge, it is very rare for it to cause a complete failure of a component. Components start to Degrade at 700V. I have seen complete failure of a RAM module caused by an engineer picking the module up and taking two or three steps across a vinyl floor (3,000 - 12,000V depending upon humidity), but the processor the engineer was holding still worked. However, the processor benchmarked far slower than would be expected.

[lasersage]

I'm not sure what these numbers are based on, 700V doesn't sound right. I've had a look around for electrostatic discharge damage thresholds to pn junctions but without much success. ieee have some stuff but I'd have to pay to read it :( This link http://www.syncpower.com/datasheet/JEDEC%20HBM.pdf seemed useful in how people classify equipment as to how static safe it is but nowhere is 700V nor 3000V or 12000V mentioned. Page 16 shows all the classification levels. This is genuinely the first time I've ever heard of things running slowly due to partial static damage and I'm still at a loss for an explanation. Links to any of the literature you're referencing would be useful. I totally agree that complete failure of a component is rare. I've handled a lot of sensitive gear in a fairly relaxed way and never had a problem. How do you calculate the 3KV to 12KV figure? Was the RAM definitely working beforehand?

[DamionLee]

Apologies for being away for so long, unfortunately had too much work on for the last couple of weeks to get back on line. Anyhow, all of the figures I use currently are quoted from HP's official documentation provided to engineers. I'm not at liberty to reproduce the documentation, and as you've found it is incredibly difficult to find resources for this online. A few pages I have located are: http://www.pcworld.com/article/82184/avoid_static_damage_to_your_pc.html http://www.ideologics.co.uk/computer-help/does-static-electricity-really-damage-computers/ http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5276582.html

[lasersage]

No probs. Your links certainly do suggest there is a partial failure problem. Sorry for being a cheeky git before with comments like "Its lovely that you feel you're an experienced trained engineer, good for you." that was a bit out of order, I shouldn't be commenting on your engineering status. I read ideologics first and found it a little "hearsay", with no good links and what with it being a blog I wasn't very impressed. However the patents link and (I can't believe I'm saying this) the PCworld link were actually interesting reading. I thought their article was quite balanced, comparing the dangers but also confessing the possibility it'll never occur (last sentence of 6th paragraph). No worries if HP want to protect their documents.

[DamionLee]

Its all cool. I can understand your initial point of view, and I can understand that often my take on things like this can seem OTT and perhaps pompous - it is an undesirable side effect of spending so many years fighting the corner of ESD protection amongst engineers. I found (finally) a public document from 3M which on page 4 shows common threshold levels for a selection of components: http://solutions.3m.com/3MContentRetrievalAPI/BlobServlet?locale=en_US&lmd=1154017253000&assetId=1114279231283&assetType=MMM_Image&blobAttribute=ImageFile I thought much the same as you with regards to the PCworld link. The biggest danger with web sites is the user volume. As you mention there is a possibility nothing will happen, there is a probability of partial or terminal damage to components. The killer is that statistically with the number of people that read articles, a group of people will end up bricking their equipment if they are not led to the correct protective procedures. This can unfortunately become very expensive for the user. Fortunately, many article writers update their articles to include information on ESD protection and the risks - some do not. Some, in the past have become very abusive because they have not realised the damage done to equipment, and unfortunately this has probably led to me becoming somewhat hard edged and sharp when relaying information. For which I can only apologise to anyone who feels berated or sharply dealt with. That is never my intention, but I tire of the lack of consumer information on the subject.

[SpecieS~]

I don't want anyone to be always earth strapped when building a PC. I simply wouldn't touch the PCBs at conductive areas.

[lasersage]

yeh that's fair enough. I do my best to keep fingers clear of stuff :)

[MJTH]

Hey, I have a computer I bought off my mate, its pretty up to date geforce 8500, intel pentium Dual CPU @ 1.60 ghz, ACPI multiprocesser, and 4 gig of ram. It came with a seagate harddrive which had windows professional 64 edition installed and the guy said that you need to have that version to be able to run 4 gig of ram, is that true? and is there a way to go back to the normal version of XP with still running 4 gig of ram? Because nothing seems to install on the 64 edition.

[DamionLee]

This is an old post, but I feel it is important that the correct information is given in response to it, as this is still relevant today. To clear up the memory issue (which still confuses a lot of people): The 32-bit desktop versions of Windows XP/Vista/7 limit the amount of addressable physical memory to 4GB in total. This includes memory on graphics cards, sounds cards and CPU cache. (This is NOT a limit on 32-bit operating systems as so many people keep incorrectly pointing out - but a limitation of the processor. x86 processors which are enabled for Physical Address Extension can operate more than 4GB). If you have 4GB of RAM in your PC, then the 32-bit Windows XP/Vista/7 install that you have will take: CPU and motherboard Cache memory (that is Level-1, 2 and 3 memory), Graphics card memory and Sound card memory. That amount of memory will be removed from the 4GB upper limit and the remaining allowance will be used from the RAM. Any RAM that takes the computer over that 4GB limit will be ignored by the system. The use of PAE allows a 32-bit operating system to run much more than 4GB. Though Microsoft have reserved this for server editions of their software (for instance server 2003 has varieties which support up to 128GB on 32-bit).

[LetsExplodeSomething]

 you can still run it with 4gb but windows xp 32bit will only optimize 3gb of the ram

[SmAsH!]

To use more than 3.5gb of ram you need a 64bit operating system.
Stuff will run but you have to download the 64 bit version, make a note of this.

[bowmaster]

Upgrade the CPU. My Windows ME has an only slightly slower CPU then that.

[Lance Mt.]

 Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah..... 

          (6 months later)

  AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Windows ME.

[zack247]

lol. i once had a off the shelf top-of-the-line packard bell that ran that. ( i think iwas purchased in the early 2000's, i still have it, but now it runs xp.
and one of my friends said in almost any computer joke, windows ME is the punchline.

[bowmaster]

Lol.

[zack247]

see? Windows ME makes people lol. proof.

[bowmaster]

I know. I just get what ver computer my parent's ghad when they buy a new one.

[anarchysk8]

well on xp you can only use 3.3gb of ram for the 32bit the 64bit allows up to 8gb but most motherboards wont allow it. the install issue might be not enough room on the hdd or since the cpu is way outdated compared to now it might not handle it and as a fail safe windows 64bit (being a business class os) wont allow it to install

[fadeddeath]

Don't forget that the memory of your video card counts towards this total so if your running a 1gig card you only get use of 2.3 gigs.

[60829]

i would get yourself a faster CPU

[Muscelz]

man, i run 8gb of ddr3 @ 2ghz under Windows XP, Windows XP knows its there, i have never been able to acheive a full mem bank ive streached over 3gb BUT Vista has alot more resources and so on and can allocate room for certain resources which would otherwise be placed in "PAGE" which is quite slow to be place in the RAM which gives your system a boost in performance, not intirely noticable but yea :/ my irritatingly fast beast Intel Core i7 965 @ 4ghz (45oC idle "liquid") ASUS Rampage II Extreme Motherboard (I7) Gainward Radeon 4870 X2 Rampage700 GS GLH Edition x2 OCZ DDR3 PC3-15000 Reaper 4x2gb 8gb total Thermaltake Sword Aluminium Liquid Cooled Case Thermaltake Toughpower 1.2Kw Modular

[anarchysk8]

dude it says on the BOX for wondows xp up to 4gb ram unless you get 64bit but actually it can only use 3.3gb of that due to the 32bit limitations

[thepaul1993]

xp 32 bit can only support 3gb of ram, xp 62 bit can support more. its better then running vista because vista likes to crash. just remember that 62 bit can not run everything.

[Muscelz]

yea 64bit isn't known for its stability and compatibility, xp pro 32bit can take over 3gb of ram, my previous system had 8gb of ram running 32x xp pro and i was able to fill up around 4.6gig of that now i run win7 64x and i got eVGA X58 classified 1366 965 i7 eVGA 295 Co-Op edition x2 Corsair dominator GT 2ghz ram 6x2gb sticks 1kw corsair power supply

[uberdum05]

I run 2 desktop PC's with Core i7 processors and 8Gb RAM per computer... Networked together on a private network connection to create a tiny supercomputer... all running windows 7 64-bit...